IN RE PETTER DAVID GRIFFIN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of PETTER DAVID GRIFFIN,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 17, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 277705
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-443197-NA
RHONDA DENISE GRIFFIN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Borrello and Gleicher, JJ.
SCHUETTE, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion of my very distinguished colleagues,
Judges Borrello and Gleicher.
As the reviewing court, we may not disturb the trial court’s decision concerning the
termination of parental rights absent a finding that the trial court committed a clear error. MCR
3.977(J); In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 672; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). A trial court’s finding
is clearly erroneous, even though there is evidence to support it, if the finding leaves this Court
“with [a] definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re JK, 468 Mich 202,
209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). Further, regard must be given to the special opportunity of the
trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses that appear before it. MCR 2.613(C); In
re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 541; 702 NW2d 192 (2005).
My distinguished colleagues in the majority have determined that respondent’s single
positive drug test does not diminish the other progress respondent made in getting her drug
problem under control and that respondent “undisputedly no longer regularly resorted to using
cocaine.” I disagree. It is not enough that respondent completed a case service plan; instead, she
must have benefited from it sufficiently, so that she can provide a home where the child will not
be at risk of harm. Gazella, supra at 677. The trial court had the opportunity to observe
respondent and assess her credibility. The trial court heard respondent proclaim that her use of
cocaine was a mistake that would not happen again or that it happened because she was in the
wrong place, around the wrong people. The trial court also heard testimony that respondent
missed numerous drug screens, and it was acutely aware that respondent provided a drug screen
that was tested positive for cocaine on the first day of her termination hearing—a hearing
-1-
respondent knew was imminent when she made the decision to use cocaine just three or four
days earlier. Under these facts, I am unable to reach a firm and definite conviction that the trial
court made a mistake in finding that respondent had not sufficiently benefited from her
participation in the case service plan. Although we have more latitude under the clearly
erroneous standard than when we are reviewing a jury finding, we cannot substitute our
judgment for that of the trial court. Johnson v Johnson, 276 Mich App 1, 11; 739 NW2d 877
(2007). The trial court’s view of the evidence is plausible and we may not reverse. Beason v
Beason, 435 Mich 791, 805; 460 NW2d 207 (1990).
I would affirm the trial court’s decision.
/s/ Bill Schuette
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
